I assume that many of you have developed tools for recognition of software which is used for a particular score in question.

Here are mine tools, and here we don't count on engraving faults that could reveal it, and also not counting fonts (it is easies way). I work mostly in Finale so I can judge quicker and unequal.
FINALE:
- slur shapes (and default tip thickness as "0")
- accidental position (often to wide)
- ties (differs from slurs)
- stem lengths and beam angles (to long)
- hairpins (different tip between short and long hairpins)

I never noticed that about the Finale hairpins, OCTO. Now I'l never see anything else when I insert one!

Being no expert, I recognize LilyPond but the ugly default clef, Sibelius by the too thick default slurs and overall look, and Finale by the ugly Maestro treble clef and accent marks, the absurd default first and second endings, the missing centered multi-measure rests for multiple staffed instruments, the overly bowed default slurs etc. SCORE is not in my vocabulary yet.

I have found SCORE output often pleases my eye before I look closely enough to identify it. This is probably because (a) the default glyph designs are reasonably good, and (b) the software requires so much effort that only those who really know what they’re doing bother with it any more. So the results I see usually have good spacing and layout. Not that I can’t find things to improve about it, but it certainly beats Finale and Sibelius defaults for appearance every time.

Sibelius’s defaults make it rather easy for a novice to produce output that is readable if not always beautiful. Finale lies somewhere between the two; it is easy for the inexperienced to produce ugly or unreadable or nonsensical copy with Finale. I don’t know how easy or hard it is to mess things up in LilyPond.

But I’m getting off topic! You asked about earmarks, besides font characters, which is a very detailed inquiry! Brackets and braces have distinctive shapes; maybe that’s still too obvious. There are the typical layout problems that thoughtful engravers always fix:
• If the last system is stretched way out, it’s probably Finale (or if the last 2 systems, Sibelius)
• Large white gap in mid-page in Sibelius due to default vertical justification of not enough material
• Horizontal spacing with lyrics uneven to the point of rhythmically confusing: typically worst in Finale
• Collision avoidance in LilyPond appears to be more work than in Finale and Sibelius
• Conversely, wildly misshaped slurs happen more easily in Finale

Generally I find:
• If staff lines are too thin, or leger lines too short, it’s usually Finale
• If barlines are too heavy it’s probably LilyPond
• Melismatic lyric syllable centered on the first note rather than left-aligned: more often Finale than others
• Tempo marks with numerals improperly in the music text font is a sign of Finale
• Rehearsal letters enclosed in a shape other than rectangle or circle: Finale
• Text on a small staff, scaled to the staff size when it shouldn’t be (e.g. tempo) is often a sign of a Sibelius user not knowing about the absolute size feature

I think I could spend all week looking for these things, and I’d better stop for now.

"…a score using the Opus font but made with Finale," is how I should've said it, as in, seeing a score that implements the Finale rules but is using the font from Sibelius. I was trying to explain that seeing a particular font immediately puts my brain into a mode of expecting to see everything else I would normally associate with the software that uses that font. I was just wondering if I saw a score that swapped fonts (Maestro to Sibelius or Opus to Finale), if I would see everything unbiased and still be able to tell as easily.*

That said, I use to mix Vienna, Engraver, and Maestro (maybe?**) when using Finale—along with a number of other tweaks—and it still felt Finale-ish to me.
___________________
*But this also assumes the engraver made other adjustments, such as slur tips, and other lines, which are dead giveaways to me. If they didn't make these changes, then switching fonts wouldn't matter.
** I can't remember if I used Maestro for time-signatures or not. Perhaps not?

Just today I was looking at a score that came from Finale into Sibelius via MusicXML, and brought with it the Maestro font. The font is obviously Finale, but the bracket can only be Sibelius. On closer inspection, the slurs and note spacing are clearly Sibelius (with my custom tweaks).

These kinds of issues sometimes are conviernten in byzantine discussions. Any decent program, well adjusted in their editing parameters, you can make a very beautiful scores. I use a program of less than $ 100 and allows me to do everything (even more fexible) everything to do with Sibelius or Finale. Sometimes it's not the tool, it is the skill and taste of who uses it. I am a supporter of the program that lets you customize everything about editing and appearance of the score. It is already known that in a matter of taste there is nothing written. The important thing is that the tool is almost like a paper and pencil.

This is my first post on the forum, so hey! I wonder if you guys could help?

I didn't want to start a new thread so I thought this one was best suited to my question... Can any of you identify the program used to engrave this score. I've attached a small sample of the score which includes the clef. I just can't make out what software was used for it. Apologies for the big watermark across the score, I do own the score but thought a PDF would be a better way to show you guys!

The publisher is Schott, so that may give it away, I don't know?

Cheers guys!

Attachments

Capture.PNG (146.96 KiB) Viewed 2552 times

"Take an object. Do something to it. Do something else to it." - Jasper Johns